computer programming: has quality questions

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents computer
Weight: 0.75
, programming
Weight: 0.71
, service
Weight: 0.67
, language
Weight: 0.67
, activity
Weight: 0.63
Siblings computer programmer
Weight: 0.40
, programming language
Weight: 0.40
, computer network
Weight: 0.40
, computer program
Weight: 0.39
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.39

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality questions 1.00
has quality question 0.92

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality question)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality questions)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(computer network, has quality question)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality question)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(computer programming, has quality questions)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(computer programming, has quality question)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(computer programming, has quality question)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(computer programming, has quality question)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, has quality question)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, has quality questions)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(computer programming, has quality questions)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality question)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality questions)